[PATCH 1/1] pinctrl/at91: fix compatible order

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:04 PM, ludovic.desroches
<ludovic.desroches at atmel.com> wrote:
> Le 10/12/2012 11:23 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit :
>
>> the sam9x5 is new version of the rm9200 not the invert
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c |    2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
>> index 9c0fe11..bdb152b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
>> @@ -1331,8 +1331,8 @@ static void __devinit at91_gpio_probe_fixup(void)
>>   }
>>
>>   static struct of_device_id at91_gpio_of_match[] __devinitdata = {
>> -       { .compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-gpio", .data = &at91rm9200_ops
>> },
>>         { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9x5-gpio", .data = &at91sam9x5_ops,
>> },
>> +       { .compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-gpio", .data = &at91rm9200_ops
>> },
>>         { /* sentinel */ }
>>   };
>>
>
> Do it also for at91_pinctrl_of_match[], there is the same issue.

Shall I apply this patch to my at91 branch or will it be updated to
cover both cases?

Yours,
Linus Walleij